Drug Signature Detection Based on L1000 Genomic and Proteomic Big Data

  • Wei Chen
  • Xiaobo ZhouEmail author
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1939)


The library of integrated Network-Based Cellular Signatures (LINCS) project aims to create a network-based understanding of biology by cataloging changes in gene expression and signal transduction. L1000 big datasets provide gene expression profiles induced by over 10,000 compounds, shRNAs, and kinase inhibitors using L1000 platform. We developed a systematic compound signature discovery pipeline named csNMF, which covers from raw L1000 data processing to drug screening and mechanism generation. The discovered compound signatures of breast cancer were consistent with the LINCS KINOMEscan data and were clinically relevant. In this way, the potential mechanisms of compounds’ efficacy are elucidated by our computational model.

Key words

LINCS L1000 csNMF Compound signature Drug signature Compound efficacy 



The work was supported by the grants of NIH U01HL111560-04 (Zhou) and NIH U01CA166886-03 (Zhou).


  1. 1.
    Downey W, Liu C, Hartigan J (2010) Compound profiling: size impact on primary screening libraries. Drug Discovery World pp 81–86Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lehmann BD et al (2011) Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies. J Clin Invest 121(7):2750–2767Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duan Q et al (2014) LINCS canvas browser: interactive web app to query, browse and interrogate LINCS L1000 gene expression signatures. Nucleic Acids Res 42:W449–W460Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lamb J, Crawford ED, Peck D, Modell JW, Blat IC et al (2006) The connectivity map: using gene-expression signatures to connect small molecules, genes, and disease. Science 313:1929–1935Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peng HM, Zhao WL, Tan H, Ji ZW, Li JS, Li K, Zhou XB (2016) Prediction of treatment efficacy for prostate cancer using a mathematical model. Sci Rep 6:21599Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liu CL, Su J, Yang F, Wei K, Ma JW, Zhou XB (2015) Compound signature detection on LINCS L1000 big data. Mol BioSyst 11:714–722Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ji ZW, Wu D, Zhao WL, Peng HM, Zhao SJ, Huang DS, Zhou XB (2015) Systemic modeling myeloma-osteoclast interactions under normoxic/hypoxic condition using a novel computational approach. Sci Rep 5:13291Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Subramanian A et al (2005) Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102(43):15545–15550Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lamb J et al (2006) The connectivity map: using gene-expression signatures to connect small molecules, genes, and disease. Science 313(5795):1929–1935Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee DD, Seung HS (2001) Algorithms for non-negative matrix factorization. In: Advances in neural information processing systemsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee DD, Seung HS (1999) Learning the parts of objects by non-negative matrix factorization. Nature 401(6755):788–791Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim H, Park H (2007) Sparse non-negative matrix factorizations via alternating non-negativity-constrained least squares for microarray data analysis. Bioinformatics 23(12):1495–1502Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mering CV et al (2005) STRING: known and predicted protein-protein associations, integrated and transferred across organisms. Nucleic Acids Res 33(suppl 1):D433–D437Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    You ZH, Li JQ, Gao X, He Z, Zhu L, Lei YK, Ji ZW (2015) Detecting protein-protein interactions with a novel matrix-based protein sequence representation and support vector machines. Biomed Res Int 2015:867516Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lachmann A et al (2010) ChEA: transcription factor regulation inferred from integrating genome-wide ChIP-X experiments. Bioinformatics 26(19):2438–2444Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shao HW, Peng T, Ji ZW, Su J, Zhou XB (2013) Systematically studying kinase inhibitor induced signaling network signatures by integrating both therapeutic and side effects. PLoS One 8(12):e80832Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ji ZW, Su J, Wu D, Peng HM, Zhao WL, Zhou XB (2017) Predicting the impact of combined therapies on myeloma cell growth using a hybrid multi-scale agent-based model. Oncotarget 8:7647–7665Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gerl R, Vaux DL (2005) Apoptosis in the development and treatment of cancer. Carcinogenesis 26(2):263–270Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huang D et al (2007) The DAVID gene functional classification tool: a novel biological module-centric algorithm to functionally analyze large gene lists. Genome Biol 8(9):R183Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Siddiqa A et al (2008) Expression of HER-2 in MCF-7 breast cancer cells modulates anti-apoptotic proteins Survivin and Bcl-2 via the extracellular signal-related kinase (ERK) and phosphoinositide-3 kinase (PI3K) signalling pathways. BMC Cancer 8(1):129Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyWake Forest University Medical SchoolWinston-SalemUSA
  2. 2.School of Biomedical InformaticsThe University of Texas, Health Science Center at HoustonHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations